to feel so disheartened at the family court system

[currantbunsforeyes]

Ex has been harassing me using the courts for years. He's had prohibited steps order placed on me by making up lies that I'm a flight risk, appealed decisions, etc.... This has gone on for years until I was awarded sole res due to his ongoing harassment.

Despite this he's still taking me to court for shared res. There was a stay (prevention order) to stop him for doing this for two years but now they are up I'm back in court. The judge has asked for new hearing and agreed to ex's request to leave out old judgements from bundle! WTF!!! The old judgements shows how his harassment and constant harassing using courts led to me ending up with sole res.

I feel like there is no point, no consistency. I've been doing this now for eight years. PS I'm generous with contact. Dcs have alternate weekends and mid week overnight stays with him.

Are the family law court system that messed up?

In the last 6 months on MN more than one woman has posted for support because her child/children have disclosed abuse, however her previous attempts to protect her children during contact included no broken bones or incontrovertible medical evidence of rape, so the 'anxious/parental alienation' card had been played and recorded on file. These women are now afraid to act on disclosures of emotional, physical and or sexual abuse because the child's word and hers will be disregarded and she risks the punishment of losing the child. The ongoing punishment of handing the child over, in full knowledge that according to the child abuse will take place, and continuing to live with the effects are not regarded. The abusive parent knows this well. In one case the mother reported that he actually informed the court he would touch the child any way he pleased. The court insisted on ongoing unsupervised contact.

Three women on MN who have been posting for months summoned up the nerve and resources to leave their abusive partners. In all three cases there was police evidence of abuse and threat and in one case a full blown assault on the woman and one of the children. In all three cases the law has repeatedly protected the interests of the abuser to the severe detriment of the victim, in all three cases the victim being the one providing rp care, so detriment to children too. In two cases after months of the law repeatedly supporting the abuser to control, harass and threaten while non mol orders went unforced and had no real power at all, two of those women have returned to the abuser and are again living with him, siting exhausted realisation that they have nothing left to keep fighting with. One is fast approaching that point of surrender.

It's hard to see these cases come up again and again on MN and intelligent, articulate, competent women do all the right things, get advice, try every avenue and lose so comprehensively in the justice system, without feeling that the family courts far more effectively protect the rights of abusers than of children and victims of DV.

I totally agree rumble it is very very sad, having been on Mumsnet for a while, instead of being an isolated incident, is actually very common. There needs to be changes made, so that this does not happen.

The trouble with accountability after the fact Aero - many serious case reviews where a child has been seriously abused or died, cite 'multiple missed opportunities to protect a child or intervene' and 'lack of listening to the child's experience' in the family court history. One review recently where a child died via unsupervised contact with a known abusive parent commented that since the mother and even professionals involved found the father threatening and intimidating, it was wrong that no one had considered in court that the child would feel the same way and need protecting.

It is only after a child is seriously harmed beyond all possible doubt that these previous warning signs are regarded. In the cases I mentioned above, should a severe enough injury be done to the child, there will be great criticism of the disregarding of the child's disclosures. By that point it will be of no help or comfort to the mother or the child who was harmed as a proxy for ongoing abuse of the mother.

It is shocking isen't it rumble. In baby's case they wanted contact to resume. I can't imagine the terror her poor ds must have felt and to put him back into a potentially enhanced voliatile and abusive situation due to his disclosures to the professionals. I am so glad for her that, he has the decency not to show up for contact, but some would still show up. Yes professionals have found the NRP threatening and abusive to them, even Baby ex was his abusive self in court, have they thought for one nanosecond how the child might feel being put into that situation.

You are so right, rumble after the second order was made in my DD's case I realised that the court would never protect us, I decided to be nicer than nice to him hoping he would get bored and go away, the fight is all he has ever been interested in. But he just thought he'd won me back and I was going to start doing as I was told again. Started inviting himself round my house for dinner and staying LONG after DD was in bed, it was horrible for me but I figured that so long as I was DD's "shield" it was worth it. Then I met my husband and EX was mad, was sending me messages about "he thought things had changed" and that "hope is a wonderful thing" I continued to be pleasant never argued, did as I was told, agree to every request he made just to try and keep the peace but the more time passed the more cruel he became.
DD is just an object to him, a weapon, like a knife only this knife is one he can stab me with daily and never never get arrested for, but I assure you the wounds are covering every inch of my heart and soul.

hard. They don't want contact to build a relationship with the child, but to cause further abuse. I hope one day soon, like baby, he gets fed up and goes away. It's ending for baby, as she went to the Police, I woukd certainly do that hard. Even though they resumed contact, it scared her ex off, that he çoukd no longer get away with doing the things he was doing to ds. Her ds started to open up to the Police and SS too about his abuse. What have you to loose, please go to the Police.

*Contact and the children's right to an equal relationship if safe to have it is really the ideal but people always forget that extra line "if safe"

It's about time both the legal system and human beings actually looked at it and acknowledged that domestic abusers do not make adequate parents*

And here is the nub of the problem. No one in the system - that I have ever met at least - ever forgets 'if safe'. the legal system and those of us who work in it do acknowledge that violence/abuse = failure of parenting.

But you cannot just go to court and say X, Y, Z is happening with nothing more. There has to be evidence that the court can accept which proves abuse on the balance of probabilities. If the court does not agree that evidence exists, it does not mean automatically that judges are stupid pawns in the hands of abusers.

It means that the Judges are doing their job and upholding the rule of law.

This is why I said what i said earlier - the main problem is that the legal system is not the right arena for these problems. Legal actions rely on evidence and often in cases of abusive relationships that evidence is lost, blurred or can be twisted.

I agree with Sock that there can be a tendency to 'blame' victims of abuse, but you need to understand where that is coming from. Very, very many times I have had clients who have taken out injunctions against violent men, who have been told explicitly by the LA that their children will be taken into care if they resume a relationship with that man - and the next time he calls they let him in. With predictably horrible results. Of course I cannot 'blame' someone so brutalised or afraid that they just cannot escape a toxic relationship BUT it does make things very difficult for the courts whose primary goal is to keep children safe.

I completely agree with Toospotty that the problems with lack of judicial continuity don't help in the slightest - but there again is another example of how lack of resources impact on the proper functioning of the legal system.

Rather than saying it is down to judges and lawyers who just don't 'get' abuse - which I don't accept - your anger is better directed at the politicians who voted to take legal aid away from private law cases, thus leaving more and more vulnerable parents having to directly face their exes in court.

there is an election coming up, so use your vote wisely.

But Spero my Ex has criminal convictions for abuse of the children and is now allowed unsupervised contact.

And yes yes yes to the wounds all over. They cover every inch of my body and soul but no one can see them.

spotify, I totally agree with you, it seems where there is evidence, it is not treated by the Judge with the seriousness it deserves or is not factored into their judgement.

Using the courts in this way is generally considered a continuation of abuse and control by women's groups such as Pathways- and therefore I agree that the Courts are letting women down, allowing this behaviour to continue.

In my experience it is social services who are at fault. When asked for their recommendations, they fail to recognise abusive behaviour, or in our case minimise it. I've fought to have social workers from the domestic violence specific team involved but have failed because ' I' don't live with our abuser ( despite the fact that the kids do every other weekend)

There are so many of us who have the exact same circumstances as Spotify but people like Spero will continue to maintain that "Judges are doing their job and upholding the rule of law".

"Judges are doing their job and upholding the rule of law".

I think the judges need some additional training on how to spot the cycle of controlling and abusive behaviour extended into the courts, and they need to learn how to nip it in the bud.

I know thewrath, I don't think Spero really gets it. She has through admitted the system being flawed, judges do also have their own feelings and emotions, and views, from what I have read on here, that can absolutely influence their judgement.

If you have a mysogenistic woman hating judge, no training in the world is going to make any difference.

You are entitled to your opinion of what I do or not 'get' and I am entitled to disagree.

After 15 years of professional experience and personal experience of abusive relationships I think I 'get it'.

the point I am just trying to make is that Judges are in a difficult situation. They are told over and over again by the Court of Appeal and the European Court that orders preventing a child's contact with one of his parents must be a last resort, every effort must be made to preserve that relationship 'if it is the child's best interests'.

Of course it is not in the child's best interests to be forced to spend time with someone who hurt them or their mum, someone who frightens them.

But a court cannot conclude that this is actually what is happening without evidence.

A lot of my cases follow a familiar pattern. Children are too young to give a view to Cafcass, say they are 6 or under. They haven't seen their father for some time. Mother asserts that father is abusive and would hurt children. There are no police reports or other corroborating evidence. Father denies abuse. What is the court to do?

for those of you who say that orders have been made against your wishes when you have clear and strong evidence, I don't know what to say. I don't know what on earth has gone wrong in your cases. If I have clear and strong evidence that a judge ignores, I would appeal. But, as I keep saying, in my experience judge's don't ignore clear and strong evidence.

I am only sorry that so many people appear to have a different experience.

Aeroflotgirl

I agree with you.

Aeroflot - a lot of judges, particularly DJs in family cases are women. Nor do the majority of male judges seem 'misogynistic' to me.

You can't simply say this is a problem due to 'women hating judges' because that just isn't true. It may be your perception but I do not accept that is reality. And I think I have seen many more hundreds of cases than you.

Spero I am not saying tgat in all cases, but as you said the system is run by humans who are not without fault themselves. I haven't been in the situation that these poor mothers have been on here, unless you have, you cannot fully understand. It's very easy to take a professional and clinical view on it, when you are in a prifessional position, but these women are living with the effects of the judgements every day and can see the influence it has on their children, being made to have a relationship with an abusive parent.

In these cases on here, things have obviously gone wrong. Mabey appealling is an avenue that some should take.

I absolutely did have very real evidence but it was ignored and I was told by MY solicitor, who was on MY side that it didn't matter, because the abuse was to me. DD was only 12 months old and hadn't seen him since 10 weeks when he stopped coming because I wouldn't let him continue to visit at 10pm and later. He sent me a text saying "I don't have time for her during the day" every messages referred to DD as her or IT because he refused to use her name until court proceedings began but again they said it didn't matter, all previous behaviours were irrelevant, he must be given a chance. My solicitor said that even if I had him prosecuted, which I could as my GP and counselling record would be considered evidence to a criminal standard that it would STILL not matter, it would only start out as supervised. But would always eventually move on to unsupervised. I have met an incredible number of women at the women's refuge who have all either lost custody entirely or had to send children on contact with convicted abusers and drug users. It is very very far from rare and I live in a quite small town. I think the reality is that so much abuse is covered up, minimised, that people are blind to it.
When I tried to show my cafcas officer my evidence, she wouldn't look at it, said that evidence was for the courts and it was down to them to decide who was telling the truth. So exactly what is the purpose of cafcas? Too always recommend exactly the same thing for each and every case that contact is in a child's best interest, so they have a better sense of self blaa blaa blaa regardless of the actual evidence or specifics of that individual case? My cafcas officer hated me because I was on benefits and loved him because his family was a wealthy farming family. She hated me because as she said to my face "tax payers were paying for my baby and she is one of them". She felt as a paternal grandmother herself that EX's mother should be able to have my DD when he was at work, she was obscenely biased and it was clear as day.
I understand the utter determination to want to believe in our justice system, it is a painful and terrifying world to live in when you know that the courts have sentenced you to abuse for at least 16 years and there is not only nothing you can do about it and if you dare to try or speak out people will label you as paranoid, mental, a liar and all manner of other vile things because the truth, the truth is to horrific for people to believe.
www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic-violence-articles.asp?section=00010001002200020001&itemid=1126

I do agree with you spero in fact I'm pretty sure I agree with you most times I read your posts,your one of those posters I nod along to then realise it's you.

It is so frustrating,I've provided domestic violence services for about 2 decades now and I've noticed a growing trend in women staying because they are frightened of unsupervised contact.

A few years ago it used to be "I can't get help they will take my kids" now we know just how high the bar for removal is set it's changed to "I can't leave because then I won't be able to protect the kids from him"

(Standard this happens to men as well disclaimer).

Usually I'm on threads like these saying yes yes the courts will listen and they will hear and of course most of the time that is my view point because I sit in courts routinely and observe them do so,and yes I still say it and yes a large amount of my clients end up with no direct or indirect contact being ordered but I'm starting to see change with some unexpected bat shit judgements.

And I compleatly agree a lot of it is down to legal aid removal. And I did indeed make a lot of fuss about it when it was just being hinted at.

Interesting sock. Are the bat shit crazy judgments happening in cases where no one is represented? Or is this a trend overall?

I am not aware of any seismic shift in the case law recently - theCourt of Appeal were very stern about no contact orders in 2012. Is this shift very recent?

rumble

I'm a mumsnetter and have been for awhile,my personal story shows rather more hope and possibly a bit of balance.

I am married I have been seperated for about 4 years during the 7 years we were together he was horrendously abusive but I only sought help the night we parted company by taking an assault into the street into full view of others (he had cut the phone lines so I couldn't call the police) 5 armed response units attended,I cannot fault any police officer or professional I came into contact with.

2 years ago I was awarded a life time non mol covering my children and I and he can't apply to the court again about the kids none of us ever have to deal with him again.

It is mostly unrepresented victims and within the last 2 years.

This is why I am so convinced it's to do with changes to legal aid as well as cuts to DV services and children's workers.

I currently have a client with a current non mol ex with convictions for harming her and her child who meets the financial requirements for LA but cannot get help to actually divorce him because so far every solisiter she approaches says variations of " non mol awarded to long ago to meet DV criteria" yet due to the changes so many firms take only say 20 a year LA cases there waiting list is chocka and she's been on several since she seperated. we can't help her either because our services are so restricted due to funding cuts that we can only help crisis cases yet still being legally tied to the man is causing her trauma. (And yes I have permission to use that example)